An IBM/Apple partnership to tunnel into the enterprise walled garden for devices is a great idea. As a consumer it works for me. I don't know of any enterprises that can pass the Starbucks Test (test for the ubiquity of access for the digital native).

In 2005 (years before the iPhone) Apple joined forces with Motorola to launch the ROKR, a cell phone and iTunes connected music player.

It took the world a few years to recognize that the Wright brothers had flown the first airplane at Kitty Hawk, NC (first flight in Dec. 1903 to 1908 public demonstrations). -- The Wright Brothers by David McCullough

"Jointly developed with Motorola and made available on what was then the Cingular Wireless network, the iTunes-savvy Motorola ROKR may have been fugly, but Apple engineers learned as much as they could while developing it: lessons which helped them avoid the same mistakes in the iPhone..." -- Jonny Evans

The ROKR was a great "beta" success for one of the partners (Apple) and a market failure for the other. The device was both a phone and a 100-song music player with iTunes integration. I bought one for my wife and she didn't love it. I (the geek in the family) found it intriguingly interesting but frustratingly difficult to manage the songs and syncing.

It was not the disruptive innovation that would come two years later. For $250 and a two-year contract you got a 1.7 inch color display, stereo speakers, camera/video recorder and a phone with a few built in "apps". What did Apple learn from the introduction of this device and the partnership with the leading mobile device maker? One thing they learned was that without full control over the product it would be ugly! It was not innovative - just an incremental mashup of the walkman with the cell-phone. Jobs was after revolution. Hence the 100-song limit on the ROKR. The iPhone launch was only 17 months away in January 2007. Of course Apple would want to cripple the device, yet slip their toes into the waters. What a great beta test with real users and all-out marketing to see how the US would react. The product launch and validated learning was quite beneficial to Apple, not so much for Motorola.

Will the IBM-Apple partnership prove beneficial to both? Some pundits feel it is an indication of weakness in Tim Cook's leadership and that it is signaling a lack of innovation at Apple.

The deal according to the Wall Street Journal has IBM developing 100 iOS apps and supporting the business customers using those apps and products.

IBM will sell iPhones and iPads to its enterprises clients. Putting thousands of IBM consultants peddling the new Apple mobile app development language Swift. Along with apps that manage your enterprise. The answer to everyones Jeopardy question... will Siri go out with Watson?

So what will be the outcome of this partnership - will it benefit both companies - will it crack open then enterprise to mobile devices? All very good questions that we should be able to answer in two years or so.

Date Line: October 2016 Well it's been a few years - how has this partnership worked out? I've not seen any babies from the hook-up of Siri and Watson. Can't see that this partnership actually exist. So perhaps it will take a few years more - or it could be that no one at either company really wanted to work with the others. So far I'd say the relationship was not fruitful.

Comments

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?

Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, then yo…

I’ve noticed a new trend—people have been gaining titles. When I was younger, only doctors had initials (like MD) after their names. I always figured that was because society held doctors, and sometime priests (OFM) in such high regard that we wanted to point out their higher learning. I hope it was to encourage others to apply themselves in school and become doctors also. Could it have been boastful?

The Wikipedia describes these “post-nominal initials”:Post-nominal letters, also called post-nominal initials, are letters placed after the name of a person to indicate that the individual holds a position, educational degree, accreditation, office, or honor. An individual may use several different sets of post-nominal letters. The order in which these are listed after a name is based on the order of precedence and category of the order.
That’s good enough for me.
So I ask you: is the use of CSM or CSP an appropriate use of post-nominal initials?
If your not an agilista, you may wonder …

Amazon book order
What I notice first and really like is the subtle implication in the shadow of the "i" in Drive is a person taking one step in a running motion. This brings to mind the old saying - "there is no I in TEAM". There is however a ME in TEAM, and there is an I in DRIVE. And when one talks about motivating a team or an individual - it all starts with - what's in it for me.

Introduction

Pink starts with an early experiment with monkeys on problem solving. Seems the monkeys were much better problem solver's than the scientist thought they should be. This 1949 experiment is explained as the early understanding of motivation. At the time there were two main drivers of motivation: biological & external influences. Harry F. Harlow defines the third drive in a novel theory: "The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward" (p 3). This is Dan Pink's M…

Have you ever been in a situation where you thought the technique needed to move forward was one thing, yet the person leading (your leader) assumed something else was what was needed? Did you feel misaligned, unheard, marginalized? Would you believe that 54% of all leaders only use ONE style of leadership - regardless of the situation? Does that one style of leading work well for the many levels of development we see on a team?

Perhaps your team should investigate one of the most widely used leadership models in the world ("used to train over 5 million managers in the world’s most respected organizations"). And it's not just for the leaders. The training is most effective when everyone receives the training and uses the model. The use of a ubiquitous language on your team is a collaboration accelerator. When everyone is using the same mental model, speaking the same vernacular hours of frustration and discussion may be curtailed, and alignment achieved, outcomes …

Popular Topics

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?

Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, then yo…

I’ve noticed a new trend—people have been gaining titles. When I was younger, only doctors had initials (like MD) after their names. I always figured that was because society held doctors, and sometime priests (OFM) in such high regard that we wanted to point out their higher learning. I hope it was to encourage others to apply themselves in school and become doctors also. Could it have been boastful?

The Wikipedia describes these “post-nominal initials”:Post-nominal letters, also called post-nominal initials, are letters placed after the name of a person to indicate that the individual holds a position, educational degree, accreditation, office, or honor. An individual may use several different sets of post-nominal letters. The order in which these are listed after a name is based on the order of precedence and category of the order.
That’s good enough for me.
So I ask you: is the use of CSM or CSP an appropriate use of post-nominal initials?
If your not an agilista, you may wonder …

Amazon book order
What I notice first and really like is the subtle implication in the shadow of the "i" in Drive is a person taking one step in a running motion. This brings to mind the old saying - "there is no I in TEAM". There is however a ME in TEAM, and there is an I in DRIVE. And when one talks about motivating a team or an individual - it all starts with - what's in it for me.

Introduction

Pink starts with an early experiment with monkeys on problem solving. Seems the monkeys were much better problem solver's than the scientist thought they should be. This 1949 experiment is explained as the early understanding of motivation. At the time there were two main drivers of motivation: biological & external influences. Harry F. Harlow defines the third drive in a novel theory: "The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward" (p 3). This is Dan Pink's M…

Have you ever been in a situation where you thought the technique needed to move forward was one thing, yet the person leading (your leader) assumed something else was what was needed? Did you feel misaligned, unheard, marginalized? Would you believe that 54% of all leaders only use ONE style of leadership - regardless of the situation? Does that one style of leading work well for the many levels of development we see on a team?

Perhaps your team should investigate one of the most widely used leadership models in the world ("used to train over 5 million managers in the world’s most respected organizations"). And it's not just for the leaders. The training is most effective when everyone receives the training and uses the model. The use of a ubiquitous language on your team is a collaboration accelerator. When everyone is using the same mental model, speaking the same vernacular hours of frustration and discussion may be curtailed, and alignment achieved, outcomes …